|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Star Wars: Episode 2... Shooting soon, but not on film.
|
Dwayne Caldwell
Master Film Handler
Posts: 323
From: Rockwall, TX, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 05-17-2000 12:42 PM
Seems to me that a least a few filmmakers are shooting in digital already. Why would an independent looking to save money want to transfer an interpositive to a digital format? Having an interpositive means you shot your feature on film. Seems to me, to take advantage of the cost effectiveness of shooting in digital would be to shoot the project in the digital format first, then transfer the image onto film to make a release print on 35mm. If you film in 16mm, aren't you going to have to make that transfer to 35mm anyway? Also, I believe there are PC editing programs out there that cost a lot less than $100k. Granted, they aren't cheap, but I know a few people who have them, and they're not making a lot. I think all in all, when you factor in a Canon DMXL, which seems to be the camcorder of choice, and the hardware and software for a home editing facility, the entire package will run you about $10,000. The same cost as a 16mm Arriflex, Bolex, or CP-16 (I've actually shot with one of those before. Very nice camera. It's so quiet, you don't need to invest in a blimp. But what can you expect from the news camera of choice in the '60's?) And I don't think that includes the cost of editing equipment unless you're talking about the conventional editing style rewind bench with a viewfinder /soundhead monitor and a synchronizer which can be a headache 'cause then you have to spend more money conforming a print. You're better off with an Avid, and I know those wouldn't be included in the $10,000 camera/editing price quote. Also, I hear there's a digital camcorder that's supposed to be available this coming fall that shoots 24fps. This just tells me that the industry's move for an option to shoot on video is inevitable now. It's probably never going to be as good as film, and I love the medium, but I have to admit that film is pretty bias to the economically challenged.
------------------
The man with the magic hands.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Magie
Film Handler
Posts: 73
From: St. Albans, VT USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 05-17-2000 11:58 PM
The worst shooting ratio that I've heard of was "Apocalypse Now". Coppola shot something like 39:1! Since that's a 3 hour movie, multiply 39 by 3 and you get how many hours of footage they shot. Poor Walter Murch had to edit it and according to his book "In the Blink of an Eye" (which I highly, highly recommend for anyone interested in the production end of things from the editor's perspective)... anyway, according to his own calculations, Walter averaged less than 4 cuts a day considering all his time spent editing. Of course these are final-edit cuts, which doesn't include the "shadow cuts" that were tried and rejected for one reason or another. Okay, blah blah blah... get to the point.
Apocalypse Now could NOT have been shot on film if the budget had been "independent". Luckily for us, Coppola had a budget to work with, so we have a beautifully shot film to look at. But should a great story like that not be told by an independent filmmaker? Let's say Coppola was shooting that film today, but all he had for a budget was his credit card (and let's say no one had ever heard of him). Since being able to shoot such a high ratio is what really MADE that film (besides Duvall, of course) Coppola would have to either opt for digital (sacrificing picture quality to help his storytelling) or opt for film (sacrificing his shooting ratio and therefore, his story... all to save picture quality).
Yes, ideally we'd like to have both picture quality AND story, but in independent film budgets, something has to give and I personally would rather see the image suffer. And I consider myself an amateur cinematographer! But cinematography is pointless if there's no story (*cough* ThinRedLine*cough*).And oh yeah, one more thing... if an independent filmmaker decides to shoot something besides film, I think a good cinematographer will use that to his/her advantage. Sometimes a medium's weakness can provide an opportunity for something much more visually interesting. Just ask Oliver Stone; he loves to mix his mediums for effect. Sometimes it works and sometimes... well, we all saw Any Given Sunday. 
Story, story, story. Then choose a medium and use it's strengths and weaknesses to tell it. I don't care if something's shot on PixelVision or drawn frame-by-frame with an Etch-A-Sketch... just tell me a story! Entertain me!
Amen. ------------------
Scott A. Magie scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-18-2000 03:28 PM
Here are a few responses...True line doubling only smooths it out, not actually increases resolution. We have a process that will eliminate this problem. It is a series of specially designed filters that will bring the frames into near film resolution. IF IT WORKS, great, if it doesnt, at least we tried. Besides its still cheaper. It will have a resolution 10 times greater than that of BLair Witch. Blair witch used a HI-8 camera, with only 320 lines of resolution and only one ccd. The Canon DMXL-1 has 625 lines of resolution with 3 ccd's, each with its own color, and uses pixel shifting, moving each of the colored pixels away from each other, increasing color balance and resolution. The pixels are also much larger and they overlap, giving an image that is rather impressive. The sony dv cameras have smaller pixels, no shift, and cannot do full frame captures. As for if the 100:1 was a typo, actually someone else hit it on the nose, it was more of making a point. I will be able to afford it, if it were necessary, and I am a perfectionist. If it isnt right we shoot again and again and again. With film I could only afford a 10:1 ratio, and I am just not comfortable with that. I will not be working with experienced actors, so I will be spending A LOT of time teaching them as we go. This will require much greater ratios. You see, these people are good, and I will make them look great, and they work for food. Food is good. ------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
. I'm with Ian. I sure as hell won't bash on you for shooting a project on video, Dave. I wish you the best of luck.
Printer-friendly view of this topic